No Peace With Palestinians

[Phoenall]

Would be like askin' us...

... to give back the territory gained...

... in the Mexican-American War.

Not so. When the United States made a land grab in 1848 there was no international law forbidding the acquisition of land thru war. This changed after the Second World War and was in place in 1967 when the Israelis moved into the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

It was formalised after WW2 but was part of the customary laws of war, much earlier.

Date and venue when this took place ?

 

[Phoenall]

Here is a lesson in how to succeed in ending peace negotiations.



Bad Faith: Israel Provides Documents Showing Palestinians Planned To Blow Up Peace Talks

Yeah, right...tell me again, what was Mossad's motto? Oh yes, "By way of deception, thou shalt make war."

You're quoting Sun-Tzu.

Maybe, but also a version of Mossad's motto, which I note their PR has changed now so as to be more "palatable" to the international community. Their methods haven't changed though, misinformation, disinformation, hasbara, etc. Basically Zionists lie, period.

Not as much as islamonazi's or neo marxists do, both have the numbers and money to get anything done that favours them

 

[Phoenall]

Would be like askin' us...

... to give back the territory gained...

... in the Mexican-American War.

Not so. When the United States made a land grab in 1848 there was no international law forbidding the acquisition of land thru war. This changed after the Second World War and was in place in 1967 when the Israelis moved into the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

It was also illegal when Israel rolled through Palestine in 1948 stealing land.

Details of treaty and date when it came into force, remember UN resolutions are not enforceable in law

 

[Bloodrock44]

Here is a lesson in how to succeed in ending peace negotiations.



Bad Faith: Israel Provides Documents Showing Palestinians Planned To Blow Up Peace Talks

Palestinians do not want a 2 state solution. Their ultimate goal is to kill every Jew in Israel. They have no legitimate claim to one inch of Israeli land. Let them pound sand.

 

[montelatici]

You are right, the majority of the Muslims and Christians of Palestine no longer want a two-state solution. They understand that it is no longer possible. But, the Muslim and Christian Palestinians are the native inhabitants of Palestine, so they have the only claim to Palestine. What's done is done so the only way that there can be peace is a compromise between the Jewish invaders and the native people.

 

[Eloy]

Due to the occupation of the Palestinian territories, the Zionists have bitten-off more than they can chew. We have had a de facto single state of Israel since 1967. The Israelis, however, have a serious problem with international law which prohibits the acquisition of land through war. Israel also has become a pariah state on account of the brutal occupation and blockade of Palestine.

 

[Slyhunter]

You are right, the majority of the Muslims and Christians of Palestine no longer want a two-state solution. They understand that it is no longer possible. But, the Muslim and Christian Palestinians are the native inhabitants of Palestine, so they have the only claim to Palestine. What's done is done so the only way that there can be peace is a compromise between the Jewish invaders and the native people.

The answer is the three state solution. Israel, Jordan, and Egypt should split up the territories and fuck the Palestinians.

 

[Shusha]

Israel has never acquired another's sovereign territory by force. Israel acquired territory through Treaty and international legal agreements. The only sovereigns in the territory between 1923 and 1988 were Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Neither Jordan nor Egypt held sovereignty over the territory in question. They, in fact, used force to acquire (temporarily) territory which was, by all international law, outside their borders. They both eventually ceded that territory and signed peace agreements with Israel.

In terms of law, there is absolutely NO case to be made that "Palestine" (as distinct from Israel) existed at any time prior to 1988 and thus that Israel acquired another's sovereign territory by force and there is every reason to argue that, until 1993, Israel held sovereignty over all of the territory.

The best argument you can possibly make is that Israel did not apply sovereignty over all of the territory which was hers by right of sovereignty, thus creating terra nullius (territory belonging to no one). Its a dicey argument, imo, and one which has much more serious consequences for your side than for mine. (You are essentially arguing that if a sovereign doesn't exercise control over territory, the sovereign loses sovereignty over it. Bye-bye Area C for the Palestinians,and so much for any argument that settlements are illegal).

 

[Eloy]

Israel has never acquired another's sovereign territory by force. Israel acquired territory through Treaty and international legal agreements. The only sovereigns in the territory between 1923 and 1988 were Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Neither Jordan nor Egypt held sovereignty over the territory in question. They, in fact, used force to acquire (temporarily) territory which was, by all international law, outside their borders. They both eventually ceded that territory and signed peace agreements with Israel.

In terms of law, there is absolutely NO case to be made that "Palestine" (as distinct from Israel) existed at any time prior to 1988 and thus that Israel acquired another's sovereign territory by force and there is every reason to argue that, until 1993, Israel held sovereignty over all of the territory.

The best argument you can possibly make is that Israel did not apply sovereignty over all of the territory which was hers by right of sovereignty, thus creating terra nullius (territory belonging to no one). Its a dicey argument, imo, and one which has much more serious consequences for your side than for mine. (You are essentially arguing that if a sovereign doesn't exercise control over territory, the sovereign loses sovereignty over it. Bye-bye Area C for the Palestinians,and so much for any argument that settlements are illegal).

You are off your rocker to believe that Egypt and Jordan ceded by treaty Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, to Israel. I do believe I've heard it all. Blow me down!

 

[Phoenall]

Due to the occupation of the Palestinian territories, the Zionists have bitten-off more than they can chew. We have had a de facto single state of Israel since 1967. The Israelis, however, have a serious problem with international law which prohibits the acquisition of land through war. Israel also has become a pariah state on account of the brutal occupation and blockade of Palestine.

When was this alleged international enacted then, give dates and venues ?

 

[Phoenall]

Israel has never acquired another's sovereign territory by force. Israel acquired territory through Treaty and international legal agreements. The only sovereigns in the territory between 1923 and 1988 were Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Neither Jordan nor Egypt held sovereignty over the territory in question. They, in fact, used force to acquire (temporarily) territory which was, by all international law, outside their borders. They both eventually ceded that territory and signed peace agreements with Israel.

In terms of law, there is absolutely NO case to be made that "Palestine" (as distinct from Israel) existed at any time prior to 1988 and thus that Israel acquired another's sovereign territory by force and there is every reason to argue that, until 1993, Israel held sovereignty over all of the territory.

The best argument you can possibly make is that Israel did not apply sovereignty over all of the territory which was hers by right of sovereignty, thus creating terra nullius (territory belonging to no one). Its a dicey argument, imo, and one which has much more serious consequences for your side than for mine. (You are essentially arguing that if a sovereign doesn't exercise control over territory, the sovereign loses sovereignty over it. Bye-bye Area C for the Palestinians,and so much for any argument that settlements are illegal).

You are off your rocker to believe that Egypt and Jordan ceded by treaty Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, to Israel. I do believe I've heard it all. Blow me down!

Try reading the terms of he treaties that were made, and see what they say

 

[MJB12741]

You are right, the majority of the Muslims and Christians of Palestine no longer want a two-state solution. They understand that it is no longer possible. But, the Muslim and Christian Palestinians are the native inhabitants of Palestine, so they have the only claim to Palestine. What's done is done so the only way that there can be peace is a compromise between the Jewish invaders and the native people.

How do you like that? "Muslim & Christian Palestinians are the native inhabitants of Palestine." And here I actually believed it was Hebrews who built Solomon's Temple. Amazing what we can learn from the infinite wisdom of Monte.

 

[montelatici]

Of course the ancestors of the Muslims and Christian of Palestine built most everything in Palestine. That they converted to Christianity and subsequently in large part to Islam doesn't change who built the temple. Were you of the opinion that it was built by Europeans? The ancestors of the Zionists?

 

[Shusha]

Israel has never acquired another's sovereign territory by force. Israel acquired territory through Treaty and international legal agreements. The only sovereigns in the territory between 1923 and 1988 were Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Neither Jordan nor Egypt held sovereignty over the territory in question. They, in fact, used force to acquire (temporarily) territory which was, by all international law, outside their borders. They both eventually ceded that territory and signed peace agreements with Israel.

In terms of law, there is absolutely NO case to be made that "Palestine" (as distinct from Israel) existed at any time prior to 1988 and thus that Israel acquired another's sovereign territory by force and there is every reason to argue that, until 1993, Israel held sovereignty over all of the territory.

The best argument you can possibly make is that Israel did not apply sovereignty over all of the territory which was hers by right of sovereignty, thus creating terra nullius (territory belonging to no one). Its a dicey argument, imo, and one which has much more serious consequences for your side than for mine. (You are essentially arguing that if a sovereign doesn't exercise control over territory, the sovereign loses sovereignty over it. Bye-bye Area C for the Palestinians,and so much for any argument that settlements are illegal).

You are off your rocker to believe that Egypt and Jordan ceded by treaty Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, to Israel. I do believe I've heard it all. Blow me down!

I said they ceded the territory. I did not say they ceded it to Israel. Pay attention. Words matter.

Although, to be fair, a better way of putting it would be that they renounced all claims to the territory.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Israel has never acquired another's sovereign territory by force. Israel acquired territory through Treaty and international legal agreements. The only sovereigns in the territory between 1923 and 1988 were Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Neither Jordan nor Egypt held sovereignty over the territory in question. They, in fact, used force to acquire (temporarily) territory which was, by all international law, outside their borders. They both eventually ceded that territory and signed peace agreements with Israel.

In terms of law, there is absolutely NO case to be made that "Palestine" (as distinct from Israel) existed at any time prior to 1988 and thus that Israel acquired another's sovereign territory by force and there is every reason to argue that, until 1993, Israel held sovereignty over all of the territory.

The best argument you can possibly make is that Israel did not apply sovereignty over all of the territory which was hers by right of sovereignty, thus creating terra nullius (territory belonging to no one). Its a dicey argument, imo, and one which has much more serious consequences for your side than for mine. (You are essentially arguing that if a sovereign doesn't exercise control over territory, the sovereign loses sovereignty over it. Bye-bye Area C for the Palestinians,and so much for any argument that settlements are illegal).

You are off your rocker to believe that Egypt and Jordan ceded by treaty Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, to Israel. I do believe I've heard it all. Blow me down!

I said they ceded the territory. I did not say they ceded it to Israel. Pay attention. Words matter.

Although, to be fair, a better way of putting it would be that they renounced all claims to the territory.

Jordan renounced claims to the West Bank in the summer of 1988. In November of 1988, the PLO declared independence (for the umpteenth time).

 

[Shusha]

Eloy is just playing games, pointing out minutiae to avoid the truth that Israel did not take anyone's sovereign territory by force.

 

[fanger]

Long before December 28, when Secretary of State, John Kerry took the podium at the Dean Acheson Auditorium in Washington DC to pontificate on the uncertain future of the two-state solution and the need to save Israel from itself, the subject of a Palestinian state has been paramount.

In fact, unlike common belief, the push to establish a Palestinian and a Jewish state side-by-side goes back years before the passing of United Nations Resolution 181 in November 1947. That infamous resolution had called for the partitioning of Palestine into three entities: a Jewish state, a Palestinian state and an international regime to govern Jerusalem.

A more thorough reading of history can pinpoint multiple references to the Palestinian (or Arab state) between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The idea of two states is western par excellence. No Palestinian party or leader had ever thought that partitioning the holy land was ever an option. Then, such an idea seemed preposterous, partly because, as Ilan Pappe’s "Ethnic Cleaning of Palestine" shows, "almost all of the cultivated land in Palestine was held by the indigenous population (while) only 5.8% percent was in Jewish ownership in 1947.”

An earlier, but equally important reference to a Palestinian state was made in the Peel Commission, a British commission of inquiry, led by Lord Peel that was sent to Palestine to investigate the reasons behind the popular strike, uprising and later armed rebellion that began in 1936 and lasted for nearly three years.

The "underlying causes of the disturbances" were two, resolved the commission: Palestinian desire for independence, and the "hatred and fear of the establishment of the Jewish national home." The latter was promised by the British government to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland in 1917 which became known as the ‘Balfour Declaration.’

The Peel Commission recommended the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and a Palestinian state, which would be incorporated into Transjordan, with enclaves reserved for the British Mandate government.

In the time between that recommendation eighty years ago, and Kerry’s warning that the two-state solution is "in serious jeopardy," little has been done in terms of practical steps to establish a Palestinian state. Worse, the US has used its veto power in the UN repeatedly to impede the establishment of a Palestinian state, as well as utilizing its political and economic might to intimidate others from recognizing (although symbolically) a Palestinian state. It has further played a key role in funding illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem – all of which rendered the existence of a Palestinian state virtually impossible.

The issue now is: why does the West continue to use the two-state solution as their political parameter for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while, at the same time ensuring that their own prescription for conflict resolution is never to become a reality?

The answer, partly, lies in the fact the two-state solution was never devised for implementation to begin with. Like the ‘peace process’ and other pretenses, it aimed to promote among Palestinians and Arabs the idea that there is a goal worth striving for, despite being unattainable.

This is not an argument against the two-state solution; for the latter merely existed as a ruse to pacify Palestinians, buy time and demarcate the conflict with a mirage-like political horizon. If the US was indeed keen on a two-state solution, it would have fought vehemently to make it a reality, decades ago.

Antiwar.com Original » Enough Fearmongering: Only One Democratic State Is Possible in Palestine and Israel » Print

 

[Eloy]

Israel has never acquired another's sovereign territory by force. Israel acquired territory through Treaty and international legal agreements. The only sovereigns in the territory between 1923 and 1988 were Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Neither Jordan nor Egypt held sovereignty over the territory in question. They, in fact, used force to acquire (temporarily) territory which was, by all international law, outside their borders. They both eventually ceded that territory and signed peace agreements with Israel.

In terms of law, there is absolutely NO case to be made that "Palestine" (as distinct from Israel) existed at any time prior to 1988 and thus that Israel acquired another's sovereign territory by force and there is every reason to argue that, until 1993, Israel held sovereignty over all of the territory.

The best argument you can possibly make is that Israel did not apply sovereignty over all of the territory which was hers by right of sovereignty, thus creating terra nullius (territory belonging to no one). Its a dicey argument, imo, and one which has much more serious consequences for your side than for mine. (You are essentially arguing that if a sovereign doesn't exercise control over territory, the sovereign loses sovereignty over it. Bye-bye Area C for the Palestinians,and so much for any argument that settlements are illegal).

You are off your rocker to believe that Egypt and Jordan ceded by treaty Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, to Israel. I do believe I've heard it all. Blow me down!

I said they ceded the territory. I did not say they ceded it to Israel. Pay attention. Words matter.

Although, to be fair, a better way of putting it would be that they renounced all claims to the territory.

Correct; Jordan and Egypt renounced their claims in favor of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

 

[Shusha]

Correct; Jordan and Egypt renounced their claims in favor of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

Even if this is true (and its not), back up a bit.

What are you trying to argue for, here, in terms of sovereignty? Are you are trying to argue that Jordan and Egypt held sovereignty over the territory? But Jordan and Egypt gained territory outside their own international boundaries by military force. I thought you said it was not permissible to gain territory by force? So Jordan and Egypt could not have been sovereign. They had absolutely no claim to the territory.

 

[Phoenall]

Of course the ancestors of the Muslims and Christian of Palestine built most everything in Palestine. That they converted to Christianity and subsequently in large part to Islam doesn't change who built the temple. Were you of the opinion that it was built by Europeans? The ancestors of the Zionists?

Well you have just said that it was, as the Christians are mostly Roman catholic immigrants from Europe. The original Jewish Christians were killed or evicted by the Romans or the muslims